The Universalist. [volume] (Chicago [Ill.]) 1884-1897, 1887-07-09
"a CHRONOLOGY" in "THE NEW
COVENANT"
BY REV. J. W. HANSON, D. D.

keen enough to see a plain and distinct
statement Had he read carefully the
very first line of the chronological table
he criticises, he would not have mis-
called it, as he does, s'the chronology of
Jesus the Christ's ministry" when it
is expressly entitled "a chronology"
The New Covenant does not dogma
tie on dates, but the harmony con-
tanned in the body of the work, relates
the events in our Lords life, in. their
order, based on the arrangements of
Gardiner, Robinson, and Townsend
and Colt, and makes our Lords minis
try more than three years. The table
which DIR. Manley criticises does not
contain my own view at all, but the
views of those who limit the ministry
of our Lord to little more than a year,
as some very eminent scholars do.
1 need not inform DR.. Manley, / am
sure, that there is a wide diversity
among Biblical students relative to the
length of Christ's ministry. The par
ties may be called the Quadripaschal,
Tripaschal, and Bipaschal. If John v.
refers to the passover, then our Lords
ministry, as the New Covenant shows
it to be, was of more than three years.
duration. If some other feast was
meant, as some of the best critics think,
then it was but two and half years.
If the passover in John vi. is the same
as the final passover, as is the conten-
tion Of some, then his ministry was lit
tie more than year. Sir Isaac New
ton thought five passovers described. Eu-
sebius adopted the quadripaschal view.
Tatian and Origen the tripaschal; while
Iren@us and Clement of Alexandria
think our Lords ministry was but lit
tie more than year. But DIR. Manley
says John is not incorrect, and there
fore the Synoptics could not correct
him. To which reply, as far as John
goes he is accurate, but he only pre-
tends to give part of our Lords life.
Had we only Johns account, we should
know very little of the life of Christ,
and should not possess the best of his
discourses and precepts. John does
not give a word of his biography till
Jesus was more than thirty years old.
His birth, youth, genealogy, and all
previous to his baptism, are entirely
omitted by John and after his minis
try began, but very few incidents are
related by John, and then chapter after
chapter of Matthew, Mark, and Luke,
are given, without which we should
know very little of his acts and dis
courses. If DR.. Manley had been less
eager to criticise, and had carefully
read the first two lines Of the subject
of his animadversions, he would have
seen that it is a chronology made up
chiefly from Johns record, as some crit
les think the chronology should run;
and does not claim to be, as it is not the
view, of the translator of the New Gov
enant. 1 regret that I had not more
fully stated the intent of "a chronology. !"
In subsequent edition I will bear DR..
Manley in mind, and explain the intent
of 80 chronology" for his benefit.
1t is we'll known to scholars that no
chronology or harmony of the New
Testament can be more than approx
innate. The best data locate the birth
of Jesus at B. G. 4-6. The Christian
Era was arbitrarily fixed in the sixth
century by Dionysius Exiguus, and
finally established by Pepin and Charlie
magne, at least four, and perhaps six
years, too late. Our Lord in all prob
ability died A. d. 20, when he was more
than thirty three years old.
DR.. Manley is very emphatic in as
serting several data, though he can
didly admits that good scholars agree
with some of the points in the table he
condemns. True enough, Mann, Priest
ley, and Pearce deny more than one
cleansing of the temple, while others
insist on two. Lightfoot and New
come make six months between Johns
ministry and Christ's; while Benson in
sists on five months; Prideaux three
and half years; Pilkington and Whis-
ton thirteen months, and so on.
The crucihxion of Jesus is undoubt-
edly placed on Thursday, in "a chronol-
ogy," because the Jews reckoned the
day from sunset to sunset. Friday four
Friday began with them at sundown
of Thursday.
l do not recall the reasons given by
those from whom "a chronology" was
made up, for calling Aug. 10 the be-
ginning of the new year, and regret
that l am so far from my books and
manuscripts that cannot refer to them;
but admitting their reasons, surely the
years are accurately stated. Aug. 10,
A. d. IA, to Aug. 20, A. d. IA, would be
ten days of one year, and from Aug.
20, A. D. IA, to Aug. 20, A. D. 81 would
be thirteen full years and Aug. 20, A.